Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[throughfiierytrial]

Funny enough, even the Darwinian pan-adapionist biologist Richard Dawkins is willing to consider intelligent panspermea as a possibility for terrestrial biogenesis.

I suppose getting more than a little frustrated defending his religion.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

 

[KWCrazy]

So, it couldn't be that the six days are theological, but poetic constructs that lay the devotional and working framework for the Law as given through Moses?

No.
The Hebrew word yom and its plural form yamim are used over 1900 times in the Old Testament. . . . Outside of the Genesis 1 case in question, the two-hundred plus occurrences of yom preceded by ordinals all refer to a normal twenty-four hour day. Furthermore, the seven-hundred plus appearances of yamim always refer to a regular day. Thus, it is argued that the Exodus 20:11 reference to the six yamim of creation must also refer to six regular days. - Bradley and Olsen

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. - James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University.
source

No, it is NOT possible that the six days are poetic constructs. Genesis would be the worst poem ever written.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No.
The Hebrew word yom and its plural form yamim are used over 1900 times in the Old Testament. . . . Outside of the Genesis 1 case in question, the two-hundred plus occurrences of yom preceded by ordinals all refer to a normal twenty-four hour day. Furthermore, the seven-hundred plus appearances of yamim always refer to a regular day. Thus, it is argued that the Exodus 20:11 reference to the six yamim of creation must also refer to six regular days. - Bradley and Olsen

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. - James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University.
source

No, it is NOT possible that the six days are poetic constructs. Genesis would be the worst poem ever written.

So, you don't think that part of the purpose of Genesis 1 was to counter the polytheistic concepts of 'creation' that were common at the time Genesis was written? And how old do you think the earth really is, may I ask?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

So, it couldn't be that the six days are theological, but poetic constructs that lay the devotional and working framework for the Law as given through Moses?

A few passages to consider ...along side all those I've already cited...
Isaiah 44:2:
This is what the Lord says—
He who made you, who formed you in the womb

Isaiah 44:23-25:
Sing for joy, you heavens, for the Lord has done this;
shout aloud, you earth beneath.
Burst into song, you mountains,
you forests and all your trees,
for the Lord has redeemed Jacob,
he displays his glory in Israel.
“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,
25 who foils the signs of false prophets
and makes fools of diviners,
who overthrows the learning of the wise
and turns it into nonsense...

Psalm 139:15-17:
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
How vast is the sum of them!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Funny enough, even the Darwinian pan-adapionist biologist Richard Dawkins is willing to consider intelligent panspermea as a possibility for terrestrial biogenesis.

I believe Philo attended Oxford...as did my son...and maybe sat at the feet of Richard Dawkins too long????

 

[pat34lee]

So no examples. Shocking.

Sorry, wouldn't want to blow your mind all at once. People can be
fragile when their worldview falls apart.

 

[pat34lee]

No one will be correcting me because what I said is correct. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Humans are not descended from modern apes.

I'll correct you. Humans and apes were created by God. Separately.
And never the twain shall meet.

 

[pat34lee]

That is not a documentary, but a fairy tale told in scientific sounding terms.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A few passages to consider ...along side all those I've already cited...
Isaiah 44:2:
This is what the Lord says—
He who made you, who formed you in the womb

Isaiah 44:23-25:
Sing for joy, you heavens, for the Lord has done this;
shout aloud, you earth beneath.
Burst into song, you mountains,
you forests and all your trees,
for the Lord has redeemed Jacob,
he displays his glory in Israel.
“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,
25 who foils the signs of false prophets
and makes fools of diviners,
who overthrows the learning of the wise
and turns it into nonsense...

Psalm 139:15-17:
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
How vast is the sum of them!

So, how do you think God is going to "overthrow" the theory of evolution?

I believe Philo attended Oxford...as did my son...and maybe sat at the feet of Richard Dawkins too long????

Is this supposed to be a reference to me? You think Richard Dawkins was an influence?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

No, I'm not aspiring to that because I know that God has His secrets that He isn't going to divulge them (assuming we'd understand any of those secrets even if He did decide to so divulge them). I'm glad to know that you don't make any pretenses to knowing "more" than the rest of us either.

Don't worry; I take Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians and Colossians very seriously.

Hmmm...that's the first time I've ever heard that passage interpreted in a way that reads the boat as having "defied time." Which Bible scholar or pastor taught you that?

Fine. If you think Evolution is a theory for the godless, then I guess you're mind is made up. So, do you think the earth is approximately 10,000 years old according to Scripture?

Guessing you maybe aren't as familiar with Scripture as you are Darwin or something...yes the boat which Jesus cause to reach the opposite shore immediately.

 

[KWCrazy]

So, you don't think that part of the purpose of Genesis 1 was to counter the polytheistic concepts of 'creation' that were common at the time Genesis was written? And how old do you think the earth really is, may I ask?

No, I think Genesis was written so that the created would know more about the Creator. As to the age of the earth, I'll defer to the Biblical genealogists who put it from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. How old it is doesn't concern me. That God told us how He created us and we refuse to believe does concern me.

 

[Indent]

I recommend watching John Walton's video, "Genesis through Ancient Eyes."

It's very informative.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

No, I think Genesis was written so that the created would know more about the Creator. As to the age of the earth, I'll defer to the Biblical genealogists who put it from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. How old it is doesn't concern me. That God told us how He created us and we refuse to believe does concern me.

Has anyone in the thread claimed God did not create us? Because most of the proponents of evolution in this thread seem to suggest God has created us I think. I maybe be wrong. I think they believe it to be a more detailed explanation of what the Genesis account already says.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

No, I think Genesis was written so that the created would know more about the Creator. As to the age of the earth, I'll defer to the Biblical genealogists who put it from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. How old it is doesn't concern me. That God told us how He created us and we refuse to believe does concern me.

Psalm 131:1:
My heart is not proud, Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.

~ King David...a man commended to be one after God's own heart!

 

[Indent]

“The biblical storytellers recall the past, often the very distant past, not “objectively,” but purposefully. They had skin in the game. These were their stories. They wove narratives of the past to give meaning to their present—to persuade, motivate, and inspire.

To make that happen, like all storytellers, biblical storytellers invented and augmented dialogue, characters, and scenes to turn past moments into a flowing story—not because they were lazy or sneaky, but because that’s what all storytellers need to do to create a narrative. They shifted and arranged the past, or wove together discrete moments, all for the purpose of telling their story for their audience.

The Bible itself gives 100 percent proof that the biblical writers were doing just that: they present the same past events from different perspectives. And by different, I mean very different—big scenes, important details, and dialogue differ among writers.

The story of Jesus, the center of the Christian faith, is told from four different perspectives in the four Gospels. In the Old Testament we have two lengthy, very different, takes on Israel’s past. At times these stories of Jesus and Israel contradict each other. They can’t be combined somehow make one story without losing large portions of any one of these stories. Each story is meant to stand on its own—as their storytellers intended them to.

What could be more normal than for different people, living at different times, in different places, who wrote about the past for different reasons and to different audiences, to produce different versions on the past? Nothing. And that’s what we see in the Bible.”

Readers who come to the Bible expecting something more like an accurate textbook, a more-or-less objective recalling of the past—because, surely, God wouldn’t have it any other way—are in for an uncomfortable read. But if they take seriously the words in front of them, they will quickly find that the Bible doesn’t deliver on that expectation. Not remotely.
Expecting the Bible to act out of character leads to stress and anxiety and leaves us with a choice: either change our expectations to conform to what is actually in the Bible or find some way to force the Bible into our mold.

I’m going with the first option.

When we allow the Bible to set its own agenda, to show us what we have the right to expect—trusting God enough to let the Bible be what it is—we open ourselves to God’s Word with its challenges and possibilities without a lurking fear of what we might find and going into shock when we find it.

What drove the Bible’s storytellers to recall the past the way they did was the quest to experience God in the present, a sometimes volatile and catastrophic present.

What makes the Bible God’s Word isn’t its uncanny historical accuracy, as some insist, but the sacred experiences these stories point to, beyond the words themselves. Watching these ancient pilgrims work through their faith, even wrestling with how they did that, models for us our own journeys of seeking to know God better and commune with him more deeply.

If we miss that—if we expect the Bible to be God’s objective Spark Notes on the past—the stories in the Bible will forever be a source of needless frustration.”

Excerpt From: Enns, Peter. “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It.”

 

[throughfiierytrial]

“The biblical storytellers recall the past, often the very distant past, not “objectively,” but purposefully. They had skin in the game. These were their stories. They wove narratives of the past to give meaning to their present—to persuade, motivate, and inspire.

To make that happen, like all storytellers, biblical storytellers invented and augmented dialogue, characters, and scenes to turn past moments into a flowing story—not because they were lazy or sneaky, but because that’s what all storytellers need to do to create a narrative. They shifted and arranged the past, or wove together discrete moments, all for the purpose of telling their story for their audience.

The Bible itself gives 100 percent proof that the biblical writers were doing just that: they present the same past events from different perspectives. And by different, I mean very different—big scenes, important details, and dialogue differ among writers.

The story of Jesus, the center of the Christian faith, is told from four different perspectives in the four Gospels. In the Old Testament we have two lengthy, very different, takes on Israel’s past. At times these stories of Jesus and Israel contradict each other. They can’t be combined somehow make one story without losing large portions of any one of these stories. Each story is meant to stand on its own—as their storytellers intended them to.

What could be more normal than for different people, living at different times, in different places, who wrote about the past for different reasons and to different audiences, to produce different versions on the past? Nothing. And that’s what we see in the Bible.”

Readers who come to the Bible expecting something more like an accurate textbook, a more-or-less objective recalling of the past—because, surely, God wouldn’t have it any other way—are in for an uncomfortable read. But if they take seriously the words in front of them, they will quickly find that the Bible doesn’t deliver on that expectation. Not remotely.
Expecting the Bible to act out of character leads to stress and anxiety and leaves us with a choice: either change our expectations to conform to what is actually in the Bible or find some way to force the Bible into our mold.

I’m going with the first option.

When we allow the Bible to set its own agenda, to show us what we have the right to expect—trusting God enough to let the Bible be what it is—we open ourselves to God’s Word with its challenges and possibilities without a lurking fear of what we might find and going into shock when we find it.

What drove the Bible’s storytellers to recall the past the way they did was the quest to experience God in the present, a sometimes volatile and catastrophic present.

What makes the Bible God’s Word isn’t its uncanny historical accuracy, as some insist, but the sacred experiences these stories point to, beyond the words themselves. Watching these ancient pilgrims work through their faith, even wrestling with how they did that, models for us our own journeys of seeking to know God better and commune with him more deeply.

If we miss that—if we expect the Bible to be God’s objective Spark Notes on the past—the stories in the Bible will forever be a source of needless frustration.”

Excerpt From: Enns, Peter. “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It.”

Anyone who has been born again KNOWS their God and yes we as such "have skin in it"!

 

[Kenny'sID]

And yes, I do think God is ok with my approach; on top of that, in my fellowship with other Christians, I make no judgment upon their faith when they choose to support one of the several positions that evangelical Christians resort to in resolving tensions between what they read in Genesis and what they see in the world.

If you are suggesting I'm judging you, I thought I made myself very clear...it is God judging you that concerns me.

For me, all that one has to acknowledge is that, however it was done, God was and is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, along with the fact that Jesus died for sins and rose again from the dead.

It is certainly your prerogative to believe what you like.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Guessing you maybe aren't as familiar with Scripture as you are Darwin or something...yes the boat which Jesus cause to reach the opposite shore immediately.

Actually, I've been reading, studying, investigating, and trying to obey the Scriptures from cover to cover for quite some time now. I'm fairly conversant with the Bible. May I ask which resource/book you use as a reference for hermeneutics and exegetical practice?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you are suggesting I'm judging you, I thought I made myself very clear...it is God judging you that concerns me.

I'm not making any assumptions that you in particular are judging me, and I appreciate your concern over my spiritual welfare. However, I'm confident that for those things for which I could be judged by the Lord Himself, my acceptance of both ToE and Biblical Truth isn't one of those things.

It is certainly your prerogative to believe what you like.

It is my prerogative, but only to a very limited extent. We both know about the warnings that Jesus and the Apostles give regarding false gospels, false teachers, false prophets, etc. I'm under no illusion that I'm actually free to just believe as I like. At the same time, I can only believe that which seems coherent to me. Christ rising from the dead and sending the Holy Spirit into His Church seems very coherent. But, a story in which God makes the earth and everything in it in literally six days doesn't seem to me to so coherent, especially when the evidence doesn't seem to reflect a six day production. (Besides, if God is truly omnipotent, why would He even really need six days in the first place? Surely, He could bring Heaven and Earth into existence in the blink of an eye. Am I wrong?)

2PhiloVoid